... in quantum mechanics, the observer occupies a
special place - the wave function cannot collapse
(to a particular event) without one. But
'observer' is vague... presumably, it means
consciousness.

Why presumably? A wave function collapses when
a measurement is made, and this can certainly be
done through equipment which is clearly non-conscious.

Obviously at some point a conscious observer will
gather the data from that equipment, but unless we
are willing to assert that the record of that data is itself
in an indeterminate state prior to the observation

this would argue that consciousness not only
interacts with nature, but that
it can do so by reaching into the past.

I think there may be some serious problems with
that, to say the least.

On 22 Mar 2007 22:59:11 -0700, "RichD" <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com>
wrote:

On Mar 21, "Kevin Aylward" <kevin_aylw...@ntlworld.com> wrote:

Clearly, my "no magic axiom", means that consciousness
is indeed a part of physics in the sense that, whatever it
is, it is strictly the result of the physical structure in
the brain. However, it is a new axiom of physics.

By derivable, it is meant, that it logically follows from
known laws of physics.

There's another consideration... in quantum
mechanics, the observer occupies a special
place - the wave function cannot collapse
(to a particular event)without one. But
'observer' is vague... presumably, it means
consciousness. Hence, consciousness has
some attribute whch interacts with nature.

I entertain the idea that our consciousness may be related to
some means for communicating with the attributes of the other
dimensions of String Theory. If those other dimensions are right
here in our midst, and are somehow linked to the three dimensions
of space and one of time that we perceive, it may be that we
communicate "over the line" so to speak. Gordon

There's another consideration... in quantum
mechanics, the observer occupies a special
place - the wave function cannot collapse
(to a particular event) without one. But
'observer' is vague... presumably, it means
consciousness.

Presumably, it doesn't. The wave function collapses during
measurement, as best that it is understood, because it
interacts with a classical system. "Conciousness"
doesn't have anything to do with it at all.
The measuring device is an inherently classical (i.e., quantum
state with very high quantum number, so that it appreoaches the
predictions of classical mechanics, the so-called "correspondence
principle".)

Hence, consciousness has
some attribute whch interacts with nature.

On Mar 23, 12:59 am, "RichD" <r_delaney2...@yahoo.com> wrote:

On Mar 21, "Kevin Aylward" <kevin_aylw...@ntlworld.com> wrote:

Clearly, my "no magic axiom", means that consciousness
is indeed a part of physics in the sense that, whatever it
is, it is strictly the result of the physical structure in
the brain. However, it is a new axiom of physics.
By derivable, it is meant, that it logically follows from
known laws of physics.

There's another consideration... in quantum
mechanics, the observer occupies a special
place - the wave function cannot collapse
(to a particular event)without one. But
'observer' is vague... presumably, it means
consciousness.

Presumably, it doesn't. The wave function collapses during
measurement, as best that it is understood, because it interacts with
a classical system. "Conciousness" doesn't have anything to do with it
at all. The measuring device is an inherently classical (i.e., quantum
state with very high quantum number, so that it appreoaches the
predictions of classical mechanics, the so-called "correspondence
principle".)

Hence, consciousness has
some attribute whch interacts with nature.

--
Rich

"RichD" <r_delaney2...@yahoo.com> wrote on 24 Mar 2007 16:5:

In QM, there is a sharp difference in result, depending on whether, and
where, we observe; refer to the electron double slit experiment. Since the
only difference between 'observer' and 'non-observer' appears to be
consciousness, we attribute special attributes to it.

You've confused:
1. Macroscopic measurement of portions of the experimental
apparatus; with
2. Human consciousness.

The double-slit experiment will give the same result
regardless of whether there are any humans anywhere
nearby the equipment while the experiment runs.

I assume you aren't going to start claiming that the mechanical photon
detectors themselves have a kind of "consciousness".

Otherwise, do you somehow believe that these mysterious
powers that you attribute to human consciousness can act over
great distances?

Or perhaps act backwards in time;

maybe you extend Schrodinger's Cat to say that the
double-slit experiment actually gives all outcomes, and
it is only when the human returns -- perhaps months
or years later -- that the various printouts assume their final
shape to give the right data.

Or maybe, just maybe, you ought to try to understand
Quantum Mechanics without appeal to human consciousness.

On Mar 23, Don Geddis <d...@geddis.org> wrote:

in quantum mechanics, the observer occupies a
special place - the wave function cannot collapse (to a
particular event) without one. But 'observer' is vague...
presumably, it means consciousness. Hence,
consciousness has some attribute whch interacts with nature.

There is no physics experiment that you can design
and run, which has a different outcome depending on whether
consciousness is present in the experiment or not.

er, yeah

More concisely, consciousness is present in
every experiment.

In QM, there is a sharp difference in result,
depending on whether, and where, we observe;
refer to the electron double slit experiment.
Since the only difference between 'observer'
and 'non-observer' appears to be consciousness,
we attribute special attributes to it.

Perhaps that is not logically justified...

Hence, it seems far more likely that consciousness
is a subset of nature, rather than the other way around.

I don't believe 'subset' is the right description...

Children need encouragement. So if a kid gets
an answer right, tell him it was a lucky guess.
That way, he develops a good, lucky feeling.
-- Deep Thoughts, by Jack Handey

Did you ever consider, that 100 incorrect coin toss
predictions carries as much information as 100
correct predictions?

Anyhow, I can describe a germane experiment,
which has been performed:
The usual electron double slit apparatus.

Yes, I'm quite familiar with the double-slit experiment.
Fascinating stuff, and hard to understand given commonsense notions
of how the universe works.

case i) Both detectors are off (removed entirely, if you wish). Result:
interference pattern, electrons behave like waves.
case ii) Both detectors are operational. Result: no interference pattern,
electrons behave like particles.
case iii) One detector on, the other off. Result: same as case (ii)
Cogitate upon case (iii), particularly compared to case (ii).

Yes, I'm aware of all this.
But in none of the experimental setup do you have any human
consciousness playing any role.

You'll get the same results as you just described, whether
or not any human is anywhere nearby when the experiment runs.

I claim this satisfies your challenge - it demonstrates some
interaction between the observer's mind, and nature.

But there was no "observer's mind" in your description of the
experimental setup.